SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION

[Robotbeat]

I want to believe, but I am still having trouble buying into the 27 engine thing.

 - Ed Kyle

Care to expand of this Ed?

Why does this need expanding? 27 is a lot of engines, more chance one of them could fail. Ed thinks that the last Falcon 9 flight was a launch failure because it had an engine out and so couldn't fully complete secondary tasks, even though the primary was a smashing success.

[beancounter]

So far they haven't had any catastophic engine failures so the power plant seems pretty robust.  Even their latest incident wasn't really an RUD.  They seem confident that they've identified the issue and if so, then the fix will be in future engines eliminating that particular issue. 
SpaceX are flying a lot of engines and getting lots of experience with their hardware.  Seems like their power plant and systems will be pretty well know by the time FH flies.

[Jim]

As I've said before, I think that had this happened on a Falcon 9 v1.1, its 50%+ higher payload numbers would have made coping far easier.

No, you can't come to that conclusion.  If this was on a V1.1, the same manifest would not have flown.  With the extra performance, Spacex could/would fly more cargo in the Dragon, more secondary payloads, another Orbcomm, etc

[Hyperion5]

As I've said before, I think that had this happened on a Falcon 9 v1.1, its 50%+ higher payload numbers would have made coping far easier.

No, you can't come to that conclusion.  If this was on a V1.1, the same manifest would not have flown.  With the extra performance, Spacex could/would fly more cargo in the Dragon, more secondary payloads, another Orbcomm, etc

I can see more cargo in Dragon, but NASA is probably not going to need an extra 4000 kg of it on ISS, nor do I see a risk incentive for Orbcomm to commit to yet another satellite, and more orders for secondary payloads aren't necessarily going to just appear because Spacex is offering extra capacity.  These are new, relatively unproven rockets and some satellite companies will hold back until they're proven, limiting the secondary payloads Spacex can attract this early on.  While the manifest might be a couple mt heavier, I doubt they'd find enough additional payloads to get to the same engine-out margin they had on CRS-1.  Besides, Spacex also has their reliability reputation to consider.  They may be able to handle this happening on the v1.0, but on v1.1 or Falcon Heavy? 

For now Spacex needs to concern themselves with curbing chances of catastrophic engine failures on the Falcon 9 family and giving themselves enough margin that a second Orbcomm-like incident doesn't happen.  Attracting more payloads is fine, but I'm willing to bet they're going to make sure it will not come at the expense of failure tolerance for Falcon 9 v1.1 or Falcon Heavy going forward. 

[Jim]

? 

For now Spacex needs to concern themselves with curbing chances of catastrophic engine failures on the Falcon 9 family and giving themselves enough margin that a second Orbcomm-like incident doesn't happen.  Attracting more payloads is fine, but I'm willing to bet they're going to make sure it will not come at the expense of failure tolerance for Falcon 9 v1.1 or Falcon Heavy going forward. 

If so, then secondaries like Orbcomm aren't going to be manifested

[simonbp]

If so, then secondaries like Orbcomm aren't going to be manifested

I'm dubious that any more are going to manifested for ISS flights. If CRS-1 had not injected coorbital to ISS, the secondary would still have been deployed.

[beancounter]

For now Spacex needs to concern themselves with curbing chances of catastrophic engine failures on the Falcon 9 family and giving themselves enough margin that a second Orbcomm-like incident doesn't happen. 

I think your use of the term 'catastrophic' is a bit loose.  If it had been a 'catastrophic engine failure' then it would have been mission over not primary mission successful.  JM2CW.

[Hyperion5]

For now Spacex needs to concern themselves with curbing chances of catastrophic engine failures on the Falcon 9 family and giving themselves enough margin that a second Orbcomm-like incident doesn't happen. 

I think your use of the term 'catastrophic' is a bit loose.  If it had been a 'catastrophic engine failure' then it would have been mission over not primary mission successful.  JM2CW.

Quick clarification--I didn't mean the CRS-1 engine failure was catastrophic.  I was merely pointing out if they can keep their engine failures more benign, there's a much better chance of the Falcon Heavy's design will be more successful.  Premature engine shutdowns and other more benign engine failures are a lot easier to deal with than engines exploding. 

[ArbitraryConstant]

Quick clarification--I didn't mean the CRS-1 engine failure was catastrophic.  I was merely pointing out if they can keep their engine failures more benign, there's a much better chance of the Falcon Heavy's design will be more successful.  Premature engine shutdowns and other more benign engine failures are a lot easier to deal with than engines exploding.

Margin is something to be negotiated with the customer(s), not hard and fast rules that dictate all future flights.

[IRobot]

Premature engine shutdowns and other more benign engine failures are a lot easier to deal with than engines exploding. 

The engine did not explode.

[HMXHMX]

Premature engine shutdowns and other more benign engine failures are a lot easier to deal with than engines exploding. 

The engine did not explode.

Then what did it do?  Chunks flew off.  Until SpaceX comes clean about what happened, people will speculate.

[QuantumG]

Premature engine shutdowns and other more benign engine failures are a lot easier to deal with than engines exploding. 

The engine did not explode.

Then what did it do?  Chunks flew off.  Until SpaceX comes clean about what happened, people will speculate.

They're welcome to do so.. unfortunately, they continue to do so by stating their arrogant opinion as fact.

[kevin-rf]

I for one highly value Mr. Hudson's opinion.

By naming they part that failed, one creates the belief that the event was not an energetic event.

[IRobot]

Premature engine shutdowns and other more benign engine failures are a lot easier to deal with than engines exploding. 

The engine did not explode.

Then what did it do?  Chunks flew off.  Until SpaceX comes clean about what happened, people will speculate.

AFAIK, the "explosion" (implosion, actually) was due to the sudden loss of air pressure inside the cone, when the engine shut down.

[Hyperion5]

Premature engine shutdowns and other more benign engine failures are a lot easier to deal with than engines exploding. 

The engine did not explode.

I wasn't saying it did.  I was making a general point that avoiding catastrophic engine failures will really be the key for Falcon Heavy's success. 

[beancounter]

Premature engine shutdowns and other more benign engine failures are a lot easier to deal with than engines exploding. 

The engine did not explode.

I wasn't saying it did.  I was making a general point that avoiding catastrophic engine failures will really be the key for Falcon Heavy's success. 

I agree but that would also apply to any other vehicle no matter which organisaton not just SpaceX.
Wrt the 'explosion', I believe that there was some sort of safety pressure release action (deliberate) that caused some bits and pieces to fly loose but can't for the life of me find the source, so, like other theories, must be considered unsubstantiated.
Would really like SpaceX to clarify the event but not holding my breath or particularly upset by it.  Just looking forward to the next flight and an increase in rates.

[jaufgang]

From http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2013/01/11/SpaceX-sets-March-1-for-launch-to-ISS/UPI-90401357951647/:

One of the Falcon rocket's nine engines shut down prematurely during the last launch on Oct. 7, but SpaceX said it did not endanger that mission and that they've identified the problem.

"We've gotten to root cause and we've briefed that to our customer (NASA)," Garrett Reisman, SpaceX's Commercial Crew project manager, said.

"Right now we're just making sure that all of our i's are dotted and our t's are crossed," he said. "we do intend to make that information more widely disseminated very, very soon."

That's two "VERYs", if anyone's counting.

[Geron]

They came clean. The engine was ordered to shut down due to partial pressure loss, this caused part of the engine fairing to break off. No explosion.

[QuantumG]

They came clean. The engine was ordered to shut down due to partial pressure loss, this caused part of the engine fairing to break off. No explosion.

What caused the partial pressure loss?

[llanitedave]

They came clean. The engine was ordered to shut down due to partial pressure loss, this caused part of the engine fairing to break off. No explosion.

What caused the partial pressure loss?

Fairing debris.